Lame Duck Council Takes the Low Road

A former, fellow retired city manager friend of mine, Bill Christopher, recently wrote in his column an article about “lame duck” city councils. The thrust of his article was that the time between the election of new council members and their taking of office was months too long. His reasoning was that a lame duck council would have the opportunity to sabotage the wishes of the voters and the new council if they chose.

I personally thought that the time from the November Election Day until early January was beneficial because it provided the newly elected officials with time to get up to speed on municipal activities. I didn’t feel Bill’s concern was any big deal until Friday when the agenda for the Northglenn Council’s meeting of December 13th was posted.

The current majority has proved Bill right. First, an outgoing member of the council, Rosie Garner, has sponsored an ordinance limiting volunteer board and commission members to two terms. With all the trouble the city has had for years obtaining volunteers, this maneuver is a slap in their face. It is also unneeded since the council appoints residents to the advisory bodies. If they want someone off, don’t reappoint them.

Second, the urban renewal authority had two advisors for many years. In April 2006, the Mayor decided to reward two former council members who had just left office by creating and appointing them as advisors. Now the Mayor wants to appoint a soon-to-be former council member, Rosie Garner, as an Advisor before the new council is seated.

The third item on the agenda is one the residents should never forget or forgive because of the precedent that is being established. Anyone who has regularly attended council meetings knows that the city manager and some of his staff members have been at odds with some of the present council members and visa a versa. Evidentially, the current majority has concluded that the manager needs more protection from the new council than exists in his present contract.

The existing contract provides for the standard six months of severance pay should he ever be terminated. The amended contract on the agenda increases the severance payment to nine months. An increase in the length of a severance period is unheard of during the term of a city manager’s contract. Because of the timing, it is clear that the council’s current majority intends on throwing its first rock at the 2008 council.

The city manager’s compensation is also being modified. His base salary is $120,000. Evidentially the sports scene is upon us because he also received a $15,000 signing bonus. After four months of service he received a bonus of $3,000. It was repeated after eight months of service for a total of $6,000. For 2007 he will receive a total of $141,000. Excluding the signing bonus his compensation is $126,000.

Per the proposed contract amendment his base salary will be $130,000. There will also be two bonuses of $4,000 each; not $3,000. Projected compensation for 2008 will be $138,000 or a 9.1 percent increase.

The cost to the city and residents for this lame duck maneuver increasing the severance period by three months is $32,500, salary only, should a termination occur in 2008. Since the manager will not complete his first year until January 11, 2008, why are Mayor Novak, Jill Parsons, Rosie Garner and Mike Martin taking this action now?

The reason put forth by the sponsors is that the new council will not have worked with the manager and therefore they are in a better position to judge his performance. In reality, two out of three members of the evaluation team, Novak and Parsons, and six out of nine of the 2008 council members will remain unchanged.

When you hear calls for unity on the city council in 2008, check back on who voted in favor of these agenda items on December 13, 2007.